This review holds implications for practice and research. Moving forward, we should build on current success, broaden the focus beyond individual teaching effectiveness, develop programs that extend over time, promote workplace learning, foster community development, and secure institutional support. We should also embed studies in a theoretical framework, conduct more qualitative and mixed methods studies, assess behavioral and organizational change, evaluate transfer to practice, analyse key features, and explore the role of faculty development within the larger organizational context.

In this article, we outline criteria for good assessment that include: (1) validity or coherence, (2) reproducibility or consistency, (3) equivalence, (4) feasibility, (5) educational effect, (6) catalytic effect, and (7) acceptability. Many of the criteria have been described before and we continue to support their importance here. However, we place particular emphasis on the catalytic effect of the assessment, which is whether the assessment provides results and feedback in a fashion that creates, enhances, and supports education. These criteria do not apply equally well to all situations. Consequently, we discuss how the purpose of the test (summative versus formative) and the perspectives of stakeholders (examinees, patients, teachers-educational institutions, healthcare system, and regulators) influence the importance of the criteria. Finally, we offer a series of practice points as well as next steps that should be taken with the criteria. Specifically, we recommend that the criteria be expanded or modified to take account of: (1) the perspectives of patients and the public, (2) the intimate relationship between assessment, feedback, and continued learning, (3) systems of assessment, and (4) accreditation systems.

No abstract

Competency-based education prepares trainees to perform tasks occurring within the context of practice. There are currently no geriatrics-specific, competency-based consensus performance standards for medical students.The authors present the results of a systematic, multimethod process to identify and define the minimum geriatrics-specific competencies needed by a new intern to adequately care for older adults. An alpha draft was crafted by geriatricians, identifying measurable performance subtasks associated with accepted standards of evidence-based geriatric care, patient safety, and "do no harm" within the first-year resident's expected scope of practice. The competencies were then assessed for content validity by key stakeholders and informants. Of the 315 respondents, 26% were geriatricians, 21% family physicians, 24% general internists, 6% neurology program directors, 14% surgery program directors, and 9% other. Twenty-four were decanal appointees. Faculty from almost half (44%) of U.S. medical schools and representatives of several major medical education organizations were present at the working conference.The final document consists of 26 competencies nested within eight content domains: Medication Management; Self-Care Capacity; Falls, Balance and Gait Disorders; Hospital Care for Elders; Cognitive and Behavioral Disorders; Atypical Presentation of Disease; Health Care Planning and Promotion; and Palliative Care.Setting minimum geriatric competency standards establishes the performance benchmarks for medical school graduates who as first-year residents will care for geriatric patients. Only half-facetiously, they are referred to as the "Don't Kill Granny" competencies. Achievement of these minimum competencies by medical students, grounded in evidence-based principles of quality care for older adults, will assure that, each year, older patients are in safer hands on July 1.